Literature Search & Levels of Evidence Discussion

Literature Search & Levels of Evidence Discussion ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS ON Literature Search & Levels of Evidence Discussion Overview This assignment must be completed on the template provided. Ohio University NRSE 4550 Literature Search & Levels of Evidence Discussion This assessment requires you to explore the literature to find 2 research articles that are examples of 2 different levels on the levels of evidence hierarchy (page 15). Objectives Understand the research levels of evidence hierarchy (pyramid) Literature Search & Levels of Evidence Discussion Demonstrate effective data base search strategies Identify studies by level of evidence Instructions To be successful, complete the following steps in order: STEP 1. Review the instructional materials and finish learning activities in module 4 STEP 2. Click here to download the rubric. Click here to download the template. To download template, click on File > Save as > Download a copy to your computer STEP 3. Open the template on your computer. Instructor Material: Title Nursing Research Author Geri LoBiondo-Wood; Judith Haber ISBN 978-0-323-43131-6 Publisher Elsevier – Health Sciences Division Publication Date July 26, 2017 Binding Trade Paper Type Print template_literature_search_and_levels_of_evidence.docx understanding_research_findings.ppt gathering_and_appraising_literature.ppt rubric_literature_sear NRSE 4550 Levels of Evidence Directions: Search the OHIO University online databases for 2 research articles. Each must be a different level of evidence on the research hierarchy. Answer the following questions: Literature Search & Levels of Evidence Discussion Article 1 APA reference: Is this study quantitative or qualitative? How do you know? Where does your study fall on the levels of evidence hierarchy? Explain. Article 2 APA reference: Is this study quantitative or qualitative? How do you know? Literature Search & Levels of Evidence Discussion Where does your study fall on the levels of evidence hierarchy? Explain. NRSE 4550 TEMPLDATE: MODULE 4: ASSESSMENT 8: WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT – LITERATURE SEARCH AND LEVELS OF EVIDENCE NRSE 4550 Levels of Evidence Directions: Search the OHIO University online databases for 2 research articles. Each must be a different level of evidence on the research hierarchy. Answer the following questions: Article 1 APA reference: 1. Is this study quantitative or qualitative? How do you know? 2. Where does your study fall on the levels of evidence hierarchy? Explain. Article 2 APA reference: 1. Is this study quantitative or qualitative? How do you know? 2. Where does your study fall on the levels of evidence hierarchy? Explain. Last updated: 3/11/2020 © 2020 School of Nursing Ohio University Page 1 of 1 CHAPTER 17 Understanding Research Findings Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. ? Discuss the difference between the “Results” section of a study and the “Discussion” section ? Identify the format of the “Results” section ? Determine whether both statistically supported and statistically unsupported findings are discussed LEARNING OUTCOMES 2 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. ? Determine whether the results are objectively reported ? Describe how tables and figures are used in a research report ? List the criteria of a meaningful table ? Identify the format and components of the “Discussion” section LEARNING OUTCOMES 3 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. ? Determine the purpose of the “Discussion” section ? Discuss the importance of including generalizations and limitations of a study in the report ? Determine the purpose of including recommendations in the study report LEARNING OUTCOMES 4 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. ? Discuss how the strength, quality, and consistency of evidence provided by the findings are related to a study’s limitations, generalizability, and applicability to practice LEARNING OUTCOMES 5 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. ? Results, conclusions, interpretations, recommendations, generalizations, and implications for future research and nursing practice ? Presented in two major areas: ? Results ? Discussion of the results FINDINGS 6 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. ? Also called: ? Statistical analyses ? Data analysis ? Analysis ? Should reflect analysis of each research question or hypothesis tested ? Identifies tests used RESULTS SECTION 7 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. ? Relevance or usefulness of findings: ? ?Literature Search & Levels of Evidence Discussion Statistically significant findings ? Design strength ? Limitations identified ? Bias controlled Unsupported hypothesis ? Testing existing practice ? Basis for continued research RESULTS SECTION 8 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. ? To report results with some detail that the investigator does not explore in the text ? A good table is one that meets the following criteria: ? Supplements and economizes the text ? Has precise titles and headings ? Does not repeat the text ROLE OF TABLES AND FIGURES 9 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. ? Discussion of the findings ? The study’s limitations ? Recommendations for ? Practice ? Future research DISCUSSION SECTION 10 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. ? Suggestions for application to: ? Practice ? Theory ? Further research RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION 11 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. ? Are the results of each of the hypothesis presented? ? Is the information regarding the results concisely and sequentially presented? ? Are the tests that were used to analyze the data presented? ? Are the results presented objectively? CRITIQUING CRITERIA FOR RESEARCH FINDINGS 12 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. ? If tables or figures are used, do they meet the following standards? ? They supplement and economize the text. ? They have precise titles and headings. ? They are not repetitious of the text.Ohio University NRSE 4550 Literature Search & Levels of Evidence Discussion CRITIQUING CRITERIA FOR RESEARCH FINDINGS 13 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. ? Are the results interpreted in light of the hypothesis and theoretical framework, and all of the other steps that preceded the results? ? If the data are supported, does the investigator provide a discussion of how the theoretical framework was supported? CRITIQUING CRITERIA FOR RESEARCH FINDINGS 14 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. ? How does the investigator attempt to identify the study’s weaknesses (i.e., threats to internal and external validity and strengths) as well as suggest possible solutions for the research area? ? Does the researcher discuss the study’s clinical relevance? CRITIQUING CRITERIA FOR RESEARCH FINDINGS 15 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. ? Are any generalizations made, and if so are they within the scope of the findings or beyond the findings? ? Are any recommendations for future research stated or implied? ? What is the study’s strength of evidence? CRITIQUING CRITERIA FOR RESEARCH FINDINGS 16 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF NURSING RESEARCH IS TO DO WHAT? A. Develop nursing knowledge and evidence-based nursing practice B. Get nurses into the practice of research C. Increase the amount of quantitative nursing studies D. Develop clinical evidence for practice E. Prove standards of care 17 Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. A. Findings B. Results C. Recommendations D. Discussion WHERE ARE THE DATA POINTS INTERPRETED IN THE RESEARCH REPORT? Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 18 Chapter 3 Gathering and Appraising the Literature Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. Literature Review ? A systematic and critical appraisal ? Provides the development and foundation of a research study ? Provides the development and foundation of the theoretical framework ? ESSENTIAL to evidence-based nursing practice Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 2 Literature Review Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 3 Theoretical or Conceptual Framework ? The basis for the development of research questions or hypotheses ? Can be viewed as a map for understanding the relationships between or among the variables in quantitative studies ? Presents the context for studying the problem ? Often illustrated using a diagram ? Integral to practice and research Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 4 Sources for Literature Review ? Primary: Research articles and books by the original author ? Secondary: Published articles or books that are written by persons other than the individual who conducted the research study or developed the theory Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 5 Literature Review: Components of Research Process ? Research question and hypothesis ? Design and method ? Outcome of the analysis Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 6 Outcome of the Analysis Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 7 Goal of the Literature Review ? ? Researcher ? Develop the knowledge foundation necessary to design a sound study ? Generate research questions and hypotheses Consumer ? Answer a clinical question or solve a problem to improve patient outcomes Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 8 Literature Review: Researcher’s Perspective ? Facilitates understanding of the problem by identifying a theoretical or conceptual framework to provide a context ? Discover what is known and not known to refine the research question and hypothesis Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 9 Literature Review: Researcher’s Perspective ? Assists in the design and methods to be used ? Allows interpretation and discussion of the outcome of the analysis by comparison with previous studies Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 10 Literature Review: Consumer’s Perspective ? Answer a clinical question or solve a problem to improve patient outcomes by: ? Identifying and gathering evidence ? Critically appraising and synthesizing evidence ? Assessing the usefulness of the evidence in changing practice ? Changing practice to improve outcomes or justify current interventions ? Developing evidence-based practice projects Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 11 Literature Review: Consumer’s Perspective ? First three steps of evidence-based practice process: ? ? ? Asking clinical questions Identifying and gathering evidence Critically appraising and synthesizing the evidence or literature Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 12 PICO Format ? P ? Problem/patient population; specifically defined group ? I ? Intervention; what intervention or event will be studied? ? C ? Comparison of intervention; with what will the intervention be compared? ? O ? Outcome; what is the effect of the intervention? Ohio University NRSE 4550 Literature Search & Levels of Evidence Discussion Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 13 Hierarchy of Preappraised Evidence Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 14 Computerized Decision Support System ? Integrates evidence-based clinical information into an electronic medical record. In these systems, specific patient data can be entered and then matched against a knowledge base to generate patient-specific recommendations or assessments. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 15 Summaries ? Clinical practice guidelines and electronic evidencebased textbooks ? Evidence-based guidelines that provide recommendations based on high-quality evidence Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 16 Synopsis of Synthesis ? Provides a preappraised summary of systematic review ? Synopses provide a synthesis of the review; some include a commentary related to strength of the evidence and applicability to a patient population Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 17 Synthesis ? Systematic reviews (e.g., a Cochrane review) are a synthesis of research on a clinical topic conducted by multiple experts. ? They include quantitative summaries, meta-analysis. ? Synopsis of single studies: Keep in mind that a synopsis of a single study, while critically preappraised, still remains a single study. Most often, significant practice changes are not based on the results of a single study. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 18 Studies ? “Synopsis of a Single Study” appraisal conducted by a single expert Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 19 Types of Resources ? Print and electronic books, journals, indexes ? Refereed or peer-reviewed journal articles are the best choice because they contain the latest information. ? Books take longer to publish than journals. ? Print indexes are needed for sources not available in online databases. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 20 What Is a Refereed or Peer-Reviewed Journal? ? A panel of scholars who are experts review submitted manuscripts. ? Usually the reviews are “blind” to promote objectivity; that is, the manuscript to be reviewed does not include the name of the authors. ? The reviewers use a set of scholarly criteria to judge whether a manuscript meets the publication standards of the journal. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 21 Types of Resources ? Electronic databases ? Used to find journals, publications of professional organizations, and publications of government agencies ? CINAHL: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature ? MEDLINE ? PubMed ? Cochrane Library ? Search engines ? Electronic databases Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 22 How Far Back? ? A general timeline for most academic or evidence-based practice papers/projects is to go back in the literature at least 3 years, and preferably 5 years. ? Some research projects may warrant going back 10 or more years. ? Extensive literature reviews on particular topics or a concept clarification methodology study helps limit the length of the search. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 23 Using Electronic Databases ? Find right terms to “plug in” ? Controlled vocabulary Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 24 CINAHL in the EBSCO Interface Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 25 Venn Diagram Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 26 Boolean Operators ? Boolean operators define the relationships between words or groups of words in a literature search. Ohio University NRSE 4550 Literature Search & Levels of Evidence Discussion ? Boolean operators dictate the relationship between words and concepts: ? “AND” requires both concepts to be located within the results that are returned. ? “OR” allows the grouping together of like terms or synonyms. ? “NOT” eliminates terms from the search. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 27 Appraising the Evidence ? Organized ? Strong knowledge base ? Quantitative (meta-analyses) and qualitative (metasyntheses) systematic reviews ? “Does the literature search seem adequate?” ? “Does the report demonstrate scholarly writing?” ? The key to a strong literature review is a careful search of published and unpublished literature. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 28 Clinical Guidelines ? www.guidelines.gov ? www.cochrane.org ? Websites of national organizations, for example: ? www.ons.org ? www.americanheart.org ? www.strokeassociation.org Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 29 WARNING ? Searching with Google, Ask.com, Lycos, or other search engines is an inefficient use of time. It can be very difficult, especially for beginners, to judge the scholarly merit of information obtained this way. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 30 Librarian: Your New Best Friend ? Visit your university or institution’s library and ask a librarian for help accessing electronic databases. Librarians are experts and usually are glad to help. ? Learn to use at least two databases. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 31 How Far Back Should a Search Go? ? Usually 5 years is good, but some advanced projects may require searches that go back 10+ years. ? Although systematic reviews contain secondary sources, they can give a scholarly overview of a topic and are helpful in deciding how far back to search. Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 32 Critiquing the Literature Review ? Are all the relevant concepts and variables included in the literature review? ? Does the search strategy include an appropriate and adequate number of databases and other resources to identify key published and unpublished research and theoretical sources? Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 33 Critiquing the Literature Review ? Are both theoretical and research literature included? ? Is there an appropriate theoretical or conceptual framework that guides the development of the research study? Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 34 Critiquing the Literature Review ? Are primary sources mainly used? ? What gaps or inconsistencies in knowledge does the literature review uncover? ? Does the literature review build on earlier studies? Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 35 Critiquing the Literature Review ? Does the summary of each reviewed study reflect the essential components of the study design? ? Type and size of sample ? Reliability and validity of instruments ? Consistency of data collection procedures ? Appropriate data analysis ? Identification of limitations Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 36 Critiquing the Literature Review ? The critique of each reviewed study should include ? Strengths ? Weaknesses ? Limitations of the design ? Conflicts ? Gaps in information Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 37 Critiquing the Literature Review ? Does the synthesis summary follow a logical sequence that presents the overall strengths and weaknesses of the reviewed studies and arrive at a logical conclusion? Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 38 Critiquing the Literature Review ? Is the literature review presented in an organized format that flows logically? ? The literature review should clearly outline the need for the particular research study or evidence-based practice project. ? Does the literature review follow the proposed purpose of the research study or evidence-based practice project? Copyright © 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986 by Mosby, an imprint of Elsevier Inc. 39 Critiquing the Literature Review ? Does the literature review genera … Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10